Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 01/26/2023 are accepted.
Oath/Declaration
4. For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that the Oath/Declaration submitted on 01/26/2023 has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/26/2023 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, an initialed and dated copy of Applicant's IDS form SB08 filed 01/26/2023 is attached to the instant Office action.
Examiner Notes
6. Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
7. Claims 1-5, 7-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite a mental process see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 1
The claims under Step 1 are directed towards a method (claims 1-5 and 7), a system (claims 8-12 and 14) and computer program product (article of manufacture, claims 15-19).
Claim 1 recites:
A computer-based method of correcting a problem during an assembly of a 3D object utilizing a 3D printing solution, (field of use) (See Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B)
the method comprising: receiving a 3D printing blueprint containing a description of a plurality of 3D blocks capable of being assembled to create an object; (data gathering activity)
executing a virtual simulation of the assembly of the plurality of 3D blocks based on the 3D printing blueprint; (Mental Processes using evaluation or calculations)
determining whether at least one problem condition arises during the execution of the virtual simulation; (Mental Processes using evaluation or judgement)
in response to determining the at least one problem condition arises, identifying the at least one problem condition among the plurality of 3D blocks based on the execution of the virtual simulation; (Mental Processes using evaluation or judgement)
executing a digital twin simulation of a digital twin model of a plurality of physically assembled 3D blocks in accordance with one or more factors; (Mental Processes using evaluation or calculations)
generating a correction plan including one or more corrective actions to be performed on the plurality of physically assembled 3D blocks (Mere data gathering activity) based on the at least one problem condition and the executed digital twin simulation; (Mental Processes using evaluation or calculations)
and executing the one or more corrective actions on the plurality of physically assembled 3D blocks based on the generated correction plan. (Mental Processes using evaluation or judgement)
Step 2A, prong 1:
The limitations of claim 1 “executing a virtual simulation of the assembly of the plurality of 3D blocks based on the 3D printing blueprint; executing a digital twin simulation of a digital twin model of a plurality of physically assembled 3D blocks in accordance with one or more factors; and generating a correction plan based on the at least one problem condition and the executed digital twin simulation;” are recitations of Mental Processes using evaluation or calculations. A digital twin, is more than a digital representation of something intended to correspond with physical or could be physical. However, executing a digital twin simulation of a plurality of blocks in accordance with "factors" can be done mentally by performing respective calculations, evaluations, judgment, or opinion regarding the blocks. Simulation in the context in claim limitations seems to encompass little more than performing some kind of analysis or calculation. The limitations “determining whether at least one problem condition arises during the execution of the virtual simulation; in response to determining the at least one problem condition arises, identifying the at least one problem condition among the plurality of 3D blocks based on the execution of the virtual simulation; executing the one or more corrective actions on the plurality of physically assembled 3D blocks based on the generated correction plan” are recitations of Mental Processes using evaluation or judgement that fall within the Mental Processes enumerated category of abstract ideas because it could be "performed by human without a computer", i.e. mental processes that require human to perform the claim abovementioned limitations. Accordingly, at step 2A, prong one, claim 1 as a whole is found to recite a judicial exception and is drawn to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim language only recites elements that can practically be performed in the human mind, the limitations fall within the mental processes grouping. Therefore, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 has no additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The preamble recited “A computer-based method of correcting a problem during an assembly of a 3D object utilizing a 3D printing solution” is recitation of field of use using generic computing components. The above limitation, that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Additionally, the limitations “receiving a 3D printing blueprint containing a description of a plurality of 3D blocks …; generating a correction plan including one or more corrective actions to be performed on the plurality of physically assembled 3D blocks …” are recitations of insignificant extra-solution activity because it involves Mere data gathering. (See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g), example (iv): Obtaining information about transactions). Therefore, the abovementioned limitations do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim 1 as a whole does not include any further additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with in the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional element: “A computer-based method of correcting a problem during an assembly of a 3D object utilizing a 3D printing solution” is recitation of field of use using generic computing components. The above limitation, that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the limitations “receiving a 3D printing blueprint containing a description of a plurality of 3D blocks …; generating a correction plan including one or more corrective actions to be performed on the plurality of physically assembled 3D blocks …” are recitations of Mere data gathering and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, these limitations recite insignificant extra-solution activity activities are “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” according to Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (see MPEP §2106.05(d)(ii) Example: “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”).
Therefore, the claim 1 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Independent Claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore are rejected under the same rationale as stated above. Additionally, the claim elements in claim 8 the “computer system comprising: one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, and program instructions” and the claim elements in claim 15 “the computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium and program instructions” respectively recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer/hardware) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Dependent claims 2-5,7,9-12,14 and 16-19 are rejected as a Judicial Exception (JE) since they do not add significantly more than the abstract idea or a practical application.
Claims 2-4 are dependent on independent claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. The limitation of claim 2: “predicting the one or more corrective actions based on a future required maintenance action …” is recitation of Mental Processes using evaluation or judgement. The limitations of claim 3 and 4: “the generated correction plan includes an instruction to execute the one or more corrective actions …” are recitations of Mental Processes using evaluation or calculations.
Claims 5 and 7 are dependent on independent claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. The limitations of claims 5 and 7 are recitations of Mental Processes using evaluation or calculations. The problem recited in claim 5 neither specifically identified, nor is the action taken in response, i.e., "based on a location" does not identify what exactly is changed about the printing. Therefore, claim 5 does not specifically link any particular characteristic about the result of the abstract idea to any particular action or transformation taken as a physical step. Accordingly, claim 5 recites mere instruction to "apply it". Further, claim 7 is recitation of Mental Processes using evaluation or judgement.
Claims 9-12 and 14 are substantially similar to claims 2-5 and 7 respectively and further claims 16-19 are substantially similar to claims 2-, therefore claims are rejected under the same rationale as stated above.
Therefore, the claims 1-5,7-12 and 14-19 are not patent eligible.
Claims 6,13 and 20 have been considered eligible under "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance" 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (7 January 2019), and the instant claims are viewed as not reciting an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 2). Specifically, claim 6 identifies a particular characteristic (inaccessibility) and indicates a particular physical action which used drone-based 3D printer. Thus, these features tied to application field and claim 6 is eligible based on Diamond v. Diehr criteria. Claims 13 and 20 are substantially similar to claim 6, therefore are eligible for similar rationale as mentioned above.
SIGNAL PER SE
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims include “computer program product”. A review of Applicant’s Specification, para. [0015] disclosed: “A computer program product embodiment ("CPP embodiment" or “CPP”) is a term used in the present disclosure to describe any set of one, or more, storage media (also called "mediums") collectively included in a set of one, or more, storage devices that collectively include machine readable code corresponding to instructions and/or data for performing computer operations …”. As the list is non-limiting and the language does not explicitly claim a “non-transitory computer program product”, under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the Specification, the “computer program product” can include a signal which is storing the instructions and accessible by a processor. As such, MPEP 2106.03(II) states: “A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter.” “For example, the BRI of computer program product can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. Thus, a claim to a machine readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134 (claims to a "machine-readable medium" were non-statutory, because their scope encompassed both statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves).” Examiner respectfully suggests that amending the claims to more explicitly disclaim transitory medium, such as using “non-transitory computer program product” would overcome this rejection. Examiner notes that in view of the 101 rejections for signal per se, the “computer program product” is not construed as structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham, v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.1.148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
8. Claims 1-5,8-12 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenworthy et al. (Pub. No. US2022/0088685A1) (hereinafter Kenworthy), in view of Bostick et al. (Pub. No. US2017/0190104A1) (hereinafter Bostick, IDS provided on 1/26/2023) and further in view of Journal “Building blocks for a digital twin of additive manufacturing” by G.L. Knapp et al. (hereinafter Knapp, available online 2017).
Regarding Claim 1, Kenworthy teaches a computer-based method of correcting a problem during an assembly of a 3D object utilizing a 3D printing solution, (Kenworthy disclosed in page 2 para [0027]: “The present disclosure describes the use of sensor systems, including but not limited to eddy current sensor systems, that can enhance the quality and accuracy of parts generated during 3D printing, and using this sensor data to enhance the accuracy of assembly of 3D-printed parts by performing fixes not only after, but also during, the print. In various embodiments, sensor systems may detect information that may be used to determine defects or potential defects in a part while the part is being printed. For example, the sensor systems can in some embodiments include a combination of types of sensors that provide real-time data about the presence of undesirable inclusions, voids, and other defects in the part being printed”).
Kenworthy teaches the method comprising: determining whether at least one problem condition arises during the execution of the virtual simulation; (Kenworthy disclosed in page 2 para [0028]: “The present disclosure describes the use of sensor systems, including but not limited to eddy current sensor systems, that can enhance the quality and accuracy of parts generated during 3D printing, and using this sensor data to enhance the accuracy of assembly of 3D-printed parts by performing fixes not only after, but also during, the print. In various embodiments, sensor systems may detect information that may be used to determine defects or potential defects in a part while the part is being printed. For example, the sensor systems can in some embodiments include a combination of types of sensors that provide real-time data about the presence of undesirable inclusions, voids, and other defects in the part being printed.” In page 11 para [0088]: “Various embodiments may include tagged monitoring of the area of the weld pool with the eddy current sensing system, an acoustic sensor, … It may be desirable to continue the print job until more than one, or a number, of defects are identified. That way the 3D printer can efficiently continue without interruption, as the builds are flagged for later repair or further inspection. In some embodiments, controller 129 (FIG. 1) can instruct the printer to print a physical marking on the outside of a build piece to a indicate the location of the inclusion. The defects can later be addressed in post-processing stages.”
The disclosure above “sensor systems may detect information that may be used to determine defects or potential defects in a part while the part is being printed” correspond to claim limitation “determining whether at least one problem condition arises”. Further, the disclosure “controller 129 (FIG. 1) can instruct the printer to print a physical marking on the outside of a build piece to indicate the location of the inclusion” correspond to claim limitation “determining problem condition during the execution of the virtual simulation”).
Kenworthy teaches in response to determining the at least one problem condition arises, identifying the at least one problem condition among the plurality of 3D blocks based on the execution of the virtual simulation; (Kenworthy disclosed in page 10 para [0086-0087]: “At 606, the data used to determine the accuracy of the 3D print job can also be used to guide installation during the robotic assembly into the larger mechanical structure. This may include using the 3D print data to compensate for prospective deviations from the 3D CAD print model, for example, and the build piece. … As an example of 606 of FIG. 6, when guiding compensation during robotic assembly, the robotic assembly system may use adhesive to structurally bond the parts together by filling a groove in one additively manufactured part and inserting the tongue of another additively manufactured part into the adhesive-filled groove to bond the parts together. … In some assembly systems, the adhesive-filled gap can be substantial enough to allow meaningful variation in the positioning of the two parts relative to each other when they are assembled. For example, there may be a 1 mm gap between the tongue and the groove on both sides of the tongue, and there may be a 3 mm gap from the end of the tongue to the bottom of the groove.”
The disclosures “using the 3D print data to compensate for prospective deviations from the 3D CAD print model; the adhesive-filled gap can be substantial enough to allow meaningful variation in the positioning of the two parts relative to each other when they are assembled” correspond to claim limitation “identifying the at least one problem condition among the plurality of 3D blocks. Further, the disclosure of controller 129 (FIG. 1) (in para [0088]) can instruct the printer to print and to indicate the location of the inclusion, teaches the claim limitation “identifying the at least one problem condition based on the execution of the virtual simulation”).
Kenworthy teaches generating a correction plan including one or more corrective actions to be performed on the plurality of physically assembled 3D blocks based on the at least one problem condition; (Kenworthy disclosed in page 10 para [0081]: “In real time or over multiple builds, the data from the sensors can be used to improve build piece accuracy by comparing as-printed geometry to the nominal geometry. … A dimensional verification step of scanning the additively manufactured build piece and comparing it to the nominal CAD geometry may be performed prior to assembly by advanced robotic assembly systems due to the current state of print accuracy (~ 1% typical), … In other words, a pre-inspection step comprising dimensional verification by scanning the additively manufactured part and comparing it to the nominal CAD geometry prior to assembly may be required to consider the overall part accuracy, resulting from both the printing accuracy and process accuracy (e.g. post-processing, support removal from 3D printed part, etc.” In para [0084]: “FIG. 6 is an exemplary flow chart of an example method of using sensor data from multiple sensors in a 3D a printer and utilizing that data while assembling 3D printed parts in a robotic assembly system. … The build piece accuracy data may then be transferred to the robotic assembly system as described in FIG. 6 (step 604), to be used to make any necessary corrections when the 3D part is installed within the vehicle or other assembly”).
Therefore, the scenario above “verification step of scanning the additively manufactured build piece and comparing it to the nominal CAD geometry may be performed prior to assembly by advanced robotic assembly systems due to the current state of print accuracy (~ 1% typical)” corresponds to “problem condition”. Further, the disclosure “scanning the additively manufactured part and comparing it to the nominal CAD geometry prior to assembly may be required to consider the overall part accuracy, resulting from both the printing accuracy and process accuracy (e.g. post-processing, support removal from 3D printed part; FIG. 6 (step 604), to be used to make any necessary corrections when the 3D part is installed within the vehicle or other assembly” correspond to claim limitation “generating a correction plan or corrective actions to be performed on the physically assembled 3D blocks based on the problem condition”).
and Kenworthy teaches executing the one or more corrective actions on the plurality of physically assembled 3D blocks based on the generated correction plan. (Kenworthy disclosed in page 10 para [0084]: “FIG. 6 is an exemplary flow chart of an example method of using sensor data from multiple sensors in a 3D a printer and utilizing that data while assembling 3D printed parts in a robotic assembly system. … The build piece accuracy data may then be transferred to the robotic assembly system as described in FIG. 6 (step 604), to be used to make any necessary corrections when the 3D part is installed within the vehicle or other assembly”). This disclosure corresponds to “physically assembled 3D blocks”.
In page 11 para [0092]: “In various embodiments, the sensors may act in concert with the controller (s) and other systems to form a closed repair loop. As shown in FIG. 1, an automated machine tool 184 can use a robotic arm 185 to perform automated repairs based on data gathered from the sensors.” This disclosure corresponds to claim limitation “executing the one or more corrective actions”).
However, Kenworthy doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation “receiving a 3D printing blueprint containing a description of a plurality of 3D blocks capable of being assembled to create an object; executing a virtual simulation of the assembly of the plurality of 3D blocks based on the 3D printing blueprint;”
Bostick teaches receiving a 3D printing blueprint containing a description of a plurality of 3D blocks capable of being assembled to create an object; (Bostick disclosed in page 8 para [0076]: “central controller 302 of FIG.3 may select a 3D model corresponding to 3D object 306. The 3D model may consist, for example, of a virtual design for 3D object 306, the virtual design being embodied in a set of printing instructions, for example. In another embodiment, 3D object to be printed may be defined by a set of specifications. Central controller 302 may furthermore determine a number of drones 304A-N needed to print the selected 3D object, as well as other project specifications such as the shape and coordinates of the final 3D object to be printed in 3D space.” In page 5 para [0057]: “Printing control tool 202 may further comprise drone coordination component 260. … input associated with a structure and/or strength of a printed object from structure and strength analysis component 240, and a set of printing instructions from printing instructions component 250. Based on these inputs, drone coordination component 260 determines a set of simultaneous flight and printing instructions for a plurality of drones configured to print …”).
Bostick teaches executing a virtual simulation of the assembly of the plurality of 3D blocks based on the 3D printing blueprint; (Bostick disclosed in page 6 para [0058]: “Printing control tool 202 may further comprise program component 270. Program component 270 may receive a set of flight instructions for a plurality of drones configured to print and optionally for at least one observer drone from drone coordination component 260 and/or a set of printing instructions for a plurality of drones from at least one of drone coordination component 260 or printing instructions component 250. … In one embodiment, flight instructions and printing instructions may comprise a set of specifications. More specifically, the set of specifications may comprise a description of a 3D object (e.g., dimensions, orientation, density, composition, etc.) to be printed. This description may be translated into the sets of flight and printing instructions by drone coordination component 260 or program component 270 by determining a portion of the 3D object in the specification, determining a printing routine to construct that portion of the 3D object, and generating a printing mission entailing a set of flight and printing instructions for carrying out that printing routine to construct the portion of the 3D object described in the set of specifications.”
It has been discussed in page 2 para [0020] that a processor for executing the program instructions comprising a printing control tool. The instructions cause the system to obtain, at the central controller, a set of specifications for the 3D object. This disclosure teaches “executing a virtual simulation”. The disclosure above “flight instructions and printing instructions may comprise a set of specifications, the set of specifications may comprise a description of a 3D object (e.g., dimensions, orientation, density, composition, etc.) to be printed” corresponds to claim limitation “assembly of the plurality of 3D blocks based on the 3D printing blueprint”).
Bostick teaches executing a simulation of a plurality of physically assembled 3D blocks in accordance with one or more factors; (Bostick disclosed in page 8 para [0076]: “Referring now to FIG. 5, with references to FIG. 3, an implementation of a 3D printing process 500 according to illustrative embodiments is shown. ... For example, central controller 302 of FIG.3 may select a 3D model corresponding to 3D object 306. … Central controller 302 may furthermore determine a number of drones 304A-N needed to print the selected 3D object, as well as other project specifications such as the shape and coordinates of the final 3D object to be printed in 3D space. As printing material 314 is layered to form object 306, central controller 302 may track final coordinates object relative to printing progress and, for example, identify a drone to send to a point where printing is needed.” In para [0080-0081]: “at step 535 the monitored structure of 3D object 30 is analyzed. This analysis may be used to determine if a structure, strength, or progress of object 306 meets a parameter of an expected structure of object 306. For example, central controller 302 may determine that object 306 is defective in some way (e.g., shape, strength, etc.). For instance, a comparison of images taken by camera 312 of observer drone 310 may show differences between a current state of object 306 and a desired programmed state or end state of object 306. … Central controller 302 may continue to monitor drones 304A-N and 3D object 306 being printed as in step 525, deploy replacement drones as in step 530, and so forth, until a printing task is completed.”
The disclosure above discussed that structure of 3D object is analyzed to determine if a structure, strength, or progress of object meets a parameter of an expected structure of object. The central controller determine that 3D object is defective in shape, strength-wise. Therefore, this scenario is equivalent to the claimed “factor” related to 3D object or 3D block, which has been executed or simulated by the controller. Further, the disclosure in para [0037] it is understood that for creating large 3D printed objects, a 3D printer creates a set of smaller parts that can then be assembled into larger parts or structures. Therefore, 3D object or 3D printer object is physically assembled in current disclosure).
Kenworthy and Bostick are analogous art because they are related in performing 3D printing solution or additive manufacturing to identify the defects during assembling 3D object. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kenworthy and Bostick, before him or her, to modify executing simulation based on the problem or defect during 3D block assembly in Kenworthy’s teaching, to include executing a simulation of physically assembled 3D blocks/object according to factors related to the 3D object exert during the assembly in Bostick’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Bostick because “Drone 410N is instructed by controller 302 to deposit a layer of printing material in response to controller 302 receiving an indication that drone 410N is at a location where printer material is to be deposited. Drone 410N, shown in FIG. 4B having an energy/power level 420N above threshold and storage tank 430A above threshold, will continue to print its task programmed by controller 302 until at least one threshold is reached. In some embodiments, central controller 302 may coordinate drone 410A-N such that drone 410A is finishing a printing task while drone 410B is simultaneously flying in to replace drone 410A, all while drone 410N is simultaneously printing its own printing task.” (Bostick disclosed in page 7-8 para [0074]).
Neither Kenworthy nor Bostick explicitly teaches the limitation “executing a digital twin simulation of a digital twin model of a plurality of 3D blocks; generating a correction plan based on the executed digital twin simulation”;
Knapp teaches executing a digital twin simulation of a digital twin model of a plurality of 3D blocks; (Knapp disclosed in page 391 section 1 (left col.): “we seek to develop and experimentally verify important building blocks for a first-generation digital twin of AM by developing a computationally efficient, comprehensive model with abilities to predict deposit geometry, transient temperature, velocity distributions and solidification parameters in three dimensions.” In page 397 section 5 (right col.): “Building blocks for developing a digital twin of the AM process will utilize a transient, three-dimensional model that calculates temperature and velocity fields, cooling rates, solidification parameters and deposit geometry.”).
and Knapp teaches one or more corrective actions to be performed on the 3D blocks based on the executed digital twin simulation (Knapp disclosed in page 390 heading ‘Abstract’: “Properties and serviceability of additively manufactured components are affected by their geometry, microstructure and defects. … A recourse is to build and rigorously validate a digital twin of the additive manufacturing process that can provide accurate predictions of the spatial and temporal variations of metallurgical parameters that affect the structure and properties of components.” In page 394 section 4 (left col.): “Fig. 3(a) and (b) show the computed temperature and the velocity distributions on the three-dimensional curved surface and along the longitudinal section of the SS 316L deposit, …”. In page 397 (under section 4 right col.): “the usefulness of being able to compute the thermal strain parameter for various materials, as the appropriateness of various processing parameters can be determined for each material. While the exact amount of thermal distortion requires more complex modeling, calculations of ε* allow precautions to be taken to prevent thermal distortion by proper material and/or parameter selection.” Further, in same page 397 section 5 (right col.): “The proposed building blocks of a first-generation digital twin of AM have been assembled to accurately estimate 3D curved surface deposit geometry for single-pass deposits, transient temperature and velocity distributions, cooling rates, …”).
Kenworthy, Bostick and Knapp are analogous art because they are related in performing 3D printing to identify the defects/problem during simulation on assembling 3D object. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kenworthy, Bostick and Knapp before him or her, to modify executing simulation based on the problem or defect during 3D block assembly in Kenworthy’s teaching, to include executing digital twin simulation while performing corrective actions on 3D object in Knapp’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Knapp because “The proposed building blocks of a first-generation digital twin of AM have been assembled to accurately estimate 3D curved surface deposit geometry for single-pass deposits, transient temperature and velocity distributions, cooling rates, solidification parameters, secondary dendrite arm spacing and micro-hardness in a computationally efficient manner. Use of the proposed framework will minimize the time consuming and expensive empirical tests to evaluate the effects of the process variables on cooling rates, single layer deposit geometry and some structural features. Further work could extend these results into a true digital twin capable of accounting for larger-scale factors, such as part geometry.” (Knapp disclosed in page 397-398 section 5).
Regarding Claim 2, Kenworthy, Bostick and Knapp teach the computer-based method of claim 1, wherein Kenworthy teaches generating the correction plan further comprises: predicting the one or more corrective actions based on a future required maintenance action and one or more future environmental changes. (Kenworthy disclosed in page 11 para [0088]: “an acoustic sensor, etc. for a prescribed number of n build layers. The inclusion can be monitored for evidence of crack initiation. Builds may be stopped or flagged for later repair/inspection as warranted. It may be desirable to continue the print job until more than one, or a number, of defects are identified. That way the 3D printer can efficiently continue without interruption, as the builds are flagged for later repair or further inspection. In some embodiments, controller 129 (FIG. 1) can instruct the printer to print a physical marking on the outside of a build piece to a indicate the location of the inclusion. The defects can later be addressed in post-processing stages. In some embodiments, the defects can be addressed by suspending printing before it is complete, such as at a time where the controller 129 may determine that the printer is at a stage where repairs should no longer be deferred”. This disclosure corresponds to claim limitation “predicting the one or more corrective actions based on a future required maintenance action”.
In page 11 para [0095-0096]: “The 3D printer, e.g., a controller of the 3D printer (not shown), may modify an operation of the 3D printer based on the measured electromagnetic characteristic. In this case, the controller may modify the next scanning cycle of the 3D printer by changing the scan path of the energy beam to stop short before reaching the planned stopping point to create the edge of the build piece in the next layer (‘n + 2’). … FIG. 7C shows the fusing of the next layer, i.e., fused layer ‘n+2’, during the next scan cycle at a time that the controller has modified the operation to stop the scan short and increase the power of the energy beam. … The increased energy beam power can cause a portion of build piece 701 slightly to the right of protrusion 709 to re-melt at a higher temperature than would have occurred if the energy beam were operating at regular power. The increased melting temperature at this point may result in a contraction in the fused material when that re-melted portion cools, thereby pulling protrusion 709 back in towards nominal geometry 705”. This disclosure corresponds to claim limitation “predicting the one or more corrective actions based on one or more future environmental changes”).
Regarding Claim 3, Kenworthy, Bostick and Knapp teach the computer-based method of claim 1, wherein Kenworthy teaches the generated correction plan includes an instruction to execute the one or more corrective actions on the plurality of physically assembled 3D blocks before the created object is complete in response to identifying at least one first condition. (Kenworthy disclosed in page 10 para [0081]: “In real time or over multiple builds, the data from the sensors can be used to improve build piece accuracy by comparing as-printed geometry to the nominal geometry. … A dimensional verification step of scanning the additively manufactured build piece and comparing it to the nominal CAD geometry may be performed prior to assembly by advanced robotic assembly systems due to the current state of print accuracy (~ 1% typical), and a robotic path may be compensated accordingly using such scan information. In other words, a pre-inspection step comprising dimensional verification by scanning the additively manufactured part and comparing it to the nominal CAD geometry prior to assembly may be required to consider the overall part accuracy, resulting from both the printing accuracy and process accuracy ...”. In page 11 para [0088]: “In some embodiments, controller 129 (FIG. 1) can instruct the printer to print a physical marking on the outside of a build piece to a indicate the location of the inclusion. The defects can later be addressed in post-processing stages. In some embodiments, the defects can be addressed by suspending printing before it is complete, such as at a time where the controller 129 may determine that the printer is at a stage where repairs should no longer be deferred”.).
Regarding Claim 4, Kenworthy, Bostick and Knapp teach the computer-based method of claim 1, wherein Kenworthy teaches the generated correction plan includes an instruction to execute the one or more corrective actions on the plurality of physically assembled 3D blocks after the created object is complete in response to identifying at least one second condition. (Kenworthy disclosed in page 12 para [0105-0106]: “At 906, the sensor moves relative to the surface of the print area and in so doing, it measures an electromagnetic characteristic of a portion of the print area, e.g., measures an electromagnetic characteristic of the build piece … The sensing process may be automated such that the sensor is scheduled to periodically take measurements. In various embodiments, the number of measurements may increase or decrease on the fly, e.g., depending on the complexity of the build or the need for accuracy (e.g., the tolerance) at that stage of the build. This information may be provided by the controller after extracting the 3-D CAD model and slicing the model into 3-D print instructions, for example. … In various embodiments, for example, the sensor may detect information that may be used to determine defects or potential defects in a part while the part is being printed. For example, detected defects … can include unintended voids, un-fused or partially-fused print material, … in the portion of the part or build piece being constructed, and others. The 3D printer may use this data together with existing print specifications for the part (e.g., the CAD model, manufacturer's specifications, etc.) to evaluate whether identified defects or other artifacts require fixing or removal, including when any such actions should be initiated, if at all.”).
Regarding Claim 5, Kenworthy, Bostick and Knapp teach the computer-based method of claim 1, wherein Kenworthy teaches executing the one or more corrective actions (Kenworthy disclosed in page 11 para [0088]: “an acoustic sensor, etc. for a prescribed number of n build layers. The inclusion can be monitored for evidence of crack initiation. Builds may be stopped or flagged for later repair/inspection as warranted. It may be desirable to continue the print job until more than one, or a number, of defects are identified. That way the 3D printer can efficiently continue without interruption, as the builds are flagged for later repair or further inspection. In some embodiments, controller 129 (FIG. 1) can instruct the printer to print a physical marking on the outside of a build piece to a indicate the location of the inclusion. The defects can later be addressed in post-processing stages.”).
However, Kenworthy doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation “a mode of emitting the one or more materials onto the plurality of physically assembled 3D blocks is selected based on a location of the identified at least one problem condition”.
Further Bostick teaches 3D printing one or more materials, wherein a mode of emitting the one or more materials onto the plurality of physically assembled 3D blocks is selected based on a location of the identified at least one problem condition. (Bostick disclosed in page 6 para [0062]: “In any case, central controller 302 is configured to program and coordinate each of a plurality of drones 304A-N having 3D printer capability (hereinafter drones 304A-N) to carry 3D printing material 314, to fly to depositing location (e.g., fly, hover, and/or land), and deposit 3D printing material 314 at the depositing location in coordination to print 3D printed object 306. ... In some embodiments, central controller 302 monitors plurality of drones 304A-N and initiates a replacement drone when one of plurality of drones 304A-N reaches a low threshold of 3D printing material 314, reaches a low energy/power threshold, or otherwise experiences technical difficulty (e.g., an unexpected malfunction or breakdown).”).
Kenworthy and Bostick are analogous art because they are related in performing 3D printing solution or additive manufacturing to identify the defects during assembling 3D object. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kenworthy and Bostick, before him or her, to modify executing simulation based on the problem or defect during 3D block assembly in Kenworthy’s teaching, to include executing a simulation of physically assembled 3D blocks/object according to factors related to the 3D object exert during the assembly in Bostick’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Bostick because “Drone 410N is instructed by controller 302 to deposit a layer of printing material in response to controller 302 receiving an indication that drone 410N is at a location where printer material is to be deposited. Drone 410N, shown in FIG. 4B having an energy/power level 420N above threshold and storage tank 430A above threshold, will continue to print its task programmed by controller 302 until at least one threshold is reached. In some embodiments, central controller 302 may coordinate drone 410A-N such that drone 410A is finishing a printing task while drone 410B is simultaneously flying in to replace drone 410A, all while drone 410N is simultaneously printing its own printing task.” (Bostick disclosed in page 7-8 para [0074]).
Regarding Claim 8, the same ground of rejection is made as discussed in claim 1 for substantially similar rationale, therefore claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenworthy, Bostick and Knapp as discussed above for substantially similar rationale. In addition, claim 8 recites following limitations:
Kenworthy teaches a computer system, the computer system comprising: one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more computer-readable memories, wherein the computer system is capable of performing a method … (Kenworthy disclosed in page 2 para [0026]: “Accordingly, in one or more example embodiments herein for providing sensor systems and 3D printers having the sensor systems, for 3D printing parts (build pieces), … and performing other functions described herein, the functions may be implemented in hardware, software, or any combination thereof. If implemented in software, the functions may be stored on or encoded as one or more instructions or code on a computer readable medium. Computer-readable media, as described below with reference to FIG. 1, includes computer storage media 155. Storage media 155 may be any available media that can be accessed by a computer or by the. By way of example, and not limitation, such computer-readable media can comprise a random-access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an electrically erasable programmable ROM (EEPROM), …, combinations of the aforementioned types of computer-readable media, or any other medium that can be used to store computer executable code in the form of instructions or data structures that can be accessed by a computer.”).
Regarding claims 9-12, Kenworthy, Bostick and Knapp teach the computer system of claim 8, are incorporating the rejections of claims 2-5 respectively, because claims 9-12 have substantially similar claim language as claims 2-5, therefore claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenworthy, Bostick and Knapp as discussed above for substantially similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15, the same ground of rejection is made as discussed in claim 1 for substantially similar rationale, therefore claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenworthy, Bostick and Knapp as discussed above for substantially similar rationale. In addition, claim 15 recites following limitations:
Kenworthy teaches a computer program product, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, the program instructions executable by a processor capable of performing a method, (Kenworthy disclosed in page 2 para [0026]: “Accordingly, in one or more example embodiments herein for providing sensor systems and 3D printers having the sensor systems, for 3D printing parts (build pieces), … and performing other functions described herein, the functions may be implemented in hardware, software, or any combination thereof. If implemented in software, the functions may be stored on or encoded as one or more instructions or code on a computer readable medium. Computer-readable media, as described below with reference to FIG. 1, includes computer storage media 155. Storage media 155 may be any available media that can be accessed by a computer or by the. By way of example, and not limitation, such computer-readable media can comprise a random-access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an electrically erasable programmable ROM (EEPROM), …, combinations of the aforementioned types of computer-readable media, or any other medium that can be used to store computer executable code in the form of instructions or data structures that can be accessed by a computer.”).
Regarding claims 16-19, Kenworthy, Bostick and Knapp teach the computer program product of claim 15, are incorporating the rejections of claims 2-5 respectively, because claims 16-19 have substantially similar claim language as claims 2-5, therefore claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenworthy, Bostick and Knapp as discussed above for substantially similar rationale.
Claims 6,13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenworthy, Bostick and Knapp and further in view of a conference paper “3D Printing with Flying Robots” by Graham Hunt et al. (hereinafter Hunt)
Regarding Claim 6, Kenworthy, Bostick and Knapp teach the computer-based method of claim 1, however, Kenworthy, Bostick and Knapp do not explicitly teach the limitation “the one or more materials are emitted onto the plurality of physically assembled 3D blocks by a drone-based 3D printer in response to determining the location of the identified at least one problem condition is inaccessible to a ground-based 3D printer.”
wherein Hunt teaches the one or more materials are emitted onto the plurality of physically assembled 3D blocks by a drone-based 3D printer in response to determining the location of the identified at least one problem condition is inaccessible to a ground-based 3D printer. (Hunt disclosed in page 4493-4494 section I: “In comparison to existing systems, the solution we propose combines a trajectory guided quadcopter with an on board printing system to simulate the printing head of a conventional 3D printer. The quadcopter allows flexibility in positioning of the printing nozzle in all three dimensions. A material of high viscosity is required for deposition in order to retain the shape followed by the moving robot. The geometry of the printed structure can be altered by controlling the path and dynamics of the robot and an advantage of an aerial robot, in contrast to a ground system, is that it can reach high elevations easily.” In page 4497 section V A. (right col.): “This scenario illustrates gap filling properties of the 3D printing method. The experimental setup consists of two suspended aluminium beams of a width of 25 mm separated by an air gap of 18mm. This setup abstracts a crack that needs to be bonded by the 3D printing robot. We performed five consecutive static depositions: twice on each aluminium beam and a final fifth print to further reinforce the bridged gap. The air gap between the beams was bridged after the second deposition (Figure 9a).”
The disclosure above “The experimental setup consists of two suspended aluminium beams of a width of 25 mm separated by an air gap of 18mm. This setup abstracts a crack that needs to be bonded by the 3D printing robot. We performed five consecutive static depositions: twice on each aluminium beam and a final fifth print to further reinforce the bridged gap” correspond to claim limitation “one or more materials are emitted onto the physically assembled 3D blocks by a drone-based 3D printer determining the location of the identified at least one problem condition.” Further the disclosure “The geometry of the printed structure can be altered by controlling the path and dynamics of the robot and an advantage of an aerial robot, in contrast to a ground system, is that it can reach high elevations easily” correspond to claim limitation “problem condition is inaccessible to a ground-based 3D printer”).
Kenworthy, Bostick, Knapp and Hunt are analogous art because they are related in performing 3D printing solution or additive manufacturing to identify the defects during assembling 3D object. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kenworthy, Bostick, Knapp and Hunt, before him or her, to modify emitting the one or more print materials onto the assembled 3D blocks/objects in Bostick’s teaching, to include emitted one or more print materials onto the assembled 3D blocks/objects by drone-based 3D printer in Hunt’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Hunt because “We evaluate various printing materials and describe the design and integration of a lightweight printing module onto a quadcopter, as well as discuss the limitations and opportunities for aerial construction with flying robots using the developed technologies. Potential applications include ad-hoc construction of first response structures in search and rescue scenarios, printing structures to bridge gaps in discontinuous terrain, and repairing damaged surfaces in areas that are inaccessible by ground-based robots.” (Hunt disclosed in page 4493 under ‘Abstract’).
Regarding claim 13, Kenworthy, Bostick and Knapp teach the computer system of claim 8, is incorporating the rejections of claim 6, because claim 13 has substantially similar claim language as claim 6, therefore claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenworthy, Bostick and Knapp and further in view of Hunt as discussed above for substantially similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20, Kenworthy, Bostick and Knapp teach the computer program product of claim 15, is incorporating the rejections of claim 6, because claim 20 has substantially similar claim language as claim 6, therefore claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenworthy, Bostick and Knapp and further in view of Hunt as discussed above for substantially similar rationale.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenworthy, Bostick and Knapp and further in view of an article “Mechanical behaviors of 3D printed lightweight concrete structure with hollow section” by Li Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding Claim 7, Kenworthy, Bostick and Knapp teach the computer-based method of claim 1, however, Kenworthy, Bostick and Knapp do not explicitly teach the limitation “the problem condition is selected from a group consisting of a gap among the plurality of 3D blocks, an improper alignment among the plurality of 3D blocks, and an improper surface dimension of at least one 3D block in the plurality of 3D blocks”.
wherein Wang teaches the problem condition is selected from a group consisting of a gap among the plurality of 3D blocks, an improper alignment among the plurality of 3D blocks, and an improper surface dimension of at least one 3D block in the plurality of 3D blocks. (Wang disclosed in page 9-10 section 3.2: “Figure 9 shows the failure patterns of the different hollow structures. The weak interlayers will reduce the overall mechanical capacities to some extent and are prone to initiate cracks. … For the cellular one, the cracks propagate approximately horizontally along with the interface between the printed filaments, where the bearing area is relatively small because of incomplete contact between neighboring filaments. … Cracks are produced at the left edge of gridding shaped structure with triangle topology (see Fig. 9c), which may also be induced by torture due to the inner structural asymmetricity. As the failure pattern shown in Fig. 9d, the cracks are parallel to the loading directions. … To assess the different deformation resistances of various hollow structures, the vertical strains under compression derived from the displacement at the top surfaces and measurements of strain gauge are depicted and compared in Fig. 10. The strain data presented in Fig. 10a are calculated from the ration of displacement at the loading end to the height of the specimen. From Fig. 10, the strain of all hollow structures increases with increasing compression force.” The disclosures “the cracks propagate approximately horizontally along with the interface between the printed filaments, where the bearing area is relatively small because of incomplete contact between neighboring filaments; assess the different deformation resistances of various hollow structures, the vertical strains under compression derived from the displacement at the top surfaces” correspond to claim limitation “problem condition is selected from a group consisting of a gap among the plurality of 3D blocks, an improper alignment among the plurality of 3D blocks”.
Further in page 11-12 section 3.3 (1st and last para): “Figure 11 shows the failure patterns of various hollow structures subject to four-point flexural test. For the beam with cellular topology, the cracks extend along the line of loading and supporting points, which may be induced by shear stress (see Fig. 11a). For the other cases, i.e., the triangle meshed, truss shaped, and lattice hollow structures, the cracks start from the mid-span and propagate upward. In the bending process of printed beam specimen, the bottom part under goes significant tensile stresses. Once the tensile strength is reached, the cracks will occur. … The deflection for various printed beams in the bending test is also illustrated in Fig. 12b from the displacement meter connected on the top surface of beams. The deflection is calculated by the displacement difference between the side and center displacement measurements.” The disclosures “Figure 11 shows the failure patterns of various hollow structures, the cracks start from the mid-span and propagate upward. In the bending process of printed beam specimen, the bottom part under goes significant tensile stresses; The deflection for various printed beams in the bending test is also illustrated in Fig. 12b from the displacement meter connected on the top surface of beams” correspond to claim limitation “problem condition is selected from improper alignment and improper surface dimension of at least one 3D block in the plurality of 3D blocks”).
Kenworthy, Bostick, Knapp and Wang are analogous art because they are related in performing 3D printing solution or additive manufacturing to identify the problem condition during assembling 3D object. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kenworthy, Bostick, Knapp and Wang before him or her, to modify identifying the problem condition or fault related to assembling 3D object in Kenworthy’s teaching, to include selecting problem condition related to gap and improper alignment among the plurality of 3D blocks/object in Wang’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Wang because “DEM is demonstrated as an effective approach to access the mechanical behaviors of the hollow structures. The regions sustaining compression and tension are derived to explicate the failure mechanism. Position and orientation of macro-cracks formed by the breakage of the contact bond and separation of adjacent balls are very similar to those of the test results.” (Wang disclosed in page 16 section 4 (left col. at bullet point (3)).
Regarding claim 14, Kenworthy, Bostick and Knapp teach the computer system of claim 8, is incorporating the rejections of claim 7, because claim 14 has substantially similar claim language as claim 7, therefore claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenworthy, Bostick and Knapp and further in view of Wang as discussed above for substantially similar rationale.
Conclusion
9. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A journal “In-situ monitoring of sub-surface and internal defects in additive manufacturing: A review” Youssef AbouelNour et al. disclosed monitoring and control of Additive Manufacturing (AM) processes in real-time can help achieve process stability and repeatability to produce high quality parts. By applying in-situ monitoring methods to the AM process, defects in the printed parts can be detected. This review offers a categorization of defects and defect formation mechanisms based on imaging and acoustic methods. It also presents a variety of different monitoring and signal processing methods that can be used in synchrony for in-situ defect detection, as well as a framework for their simultaneous use. To perform an in-situ monitoring experiment, first, a 3D CAD model is created. Defects can be formed in the model in multiple ways. They can be intentionally input in the 3D geometry during design or created by manipulating the printing process parameters to form different concentrations throughout the structure, which can lead to the formation of defects. Algorithms can also be developed to randomly insert defects in the sliced models or G codes. Irrespective of the method used, the model must be sliced before being input to the 3D printer for printing. For example, data can be compared to that of a healthy 3D CAD model or G-code of the same geometry to identify out of-control or instable conditions. The comparison can be made in a layer-by-layer manner in-situ, where as soon as a defect is detected in a given layer, the print comes to a stop.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NUPUR DEBNATH whose telephone number is (571)272-8161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am -4:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee D Chavez can be reached on (571)270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NUPUR DEBNATH/Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights